Two Planks that Any Party or Official Seeking Elected Office Can't Abandon

Though I'm registered as a Republican, that doesn't mean the Republican candidate always gets my vote. In fact, there have been many instances where the Republican candidate was as bad or worse, at least deceptively, than his challengers from other parties. You also know that I'm not afraid to call out Republicans when they are wrong too. However, I see a handful of Republicans who are actually willing to take a stand constitutionally on various issues that reach the national level. Of those issues, there are two that the Republican Establishment is attempting to rid itself of. In fact, the Nevada GOP has already dropped them. These two are the very heart and soul of the fabric of the country. They are the redefining of marriage to allow for criminal sodomites to be not only recognized as legal, but also viewed as normal, and the issue of the murder of the unborn. Let me present why these issues must not be abandoned, and please bear with me for the length.

What happened? Christians….yes, self-professed Christians voted for this man. And why? They were afraid. They were afraid if they actually voted their conscience, they would have had to vote for someone that they believed was not "electable." Yet, they voted for a man who was "not electable." Romney didn't get the nod in 2008 and he failed miserably in 2012.

So why are these issues important? They are important because God says they are important and because they are basic to the functioning of the society.

Consider the murder of the unborn, which we attempt to take the sting out of what it is by calling it abortion. That doesn't sound as bad as "murder," does it? It's like using "affair" for "adultery," or "falsehood" or "untruth" for "lie." We don't want to use the terms "sodomite," "queer," or "homosexual" because those terms actually address something that community would rather keep quiet. So they have changed the term to "gay." But there's nothing gay about the acts of practicing sodomites and their buggery, and there's nothing humane about the ripping apart, burning or stabbing of the most innocent among us.

Both of these issues weaken our society. They are sin against the true and living God and they are crimes against both men and nature.

Murder of the Unborn

The Declaration of Independence begins with the acknowledgement of the God of Creation (Nature's God) and reflects upon His laws (the laws of Nature). It reads:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

However, this is not all. The first line, then presses home why we must stand for human life at all stages:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Understand that if you are a Marxist or atheist and reject the Creator, you cannot appeal to rights. They come from God. Second, the very first right acknowledged by those who fought against tyranny was the right to life, not the right to choose to murder the unborn. In fact, the very next line reads,

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly, government was instituted to protect life. However, as the signers of the Declaration concluded, governments that will not uphold this basic protection are no longer suitable to govern and they should not have our consent, but rather we should abolish said government and re-establish the foundations on the law of God. Sadly, the Republican establishment has been flirting with abandoning this solemn duty due to the loud cry of the socialist / communist Party known as the Democrats, and the siren calls of "strategists" who want them to abandon "social issues."

I wrote about the issue of redefining marriage following the 2012 elections, when several states voted to redefine marriage to include sodomite couples. You can read my breakdown of the issue here.

I specifically referenced Webster's 1828 Dictionary as to the definition of marriage, which has been held for all of human history.

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

As examples, Noah Webster gave several sentences that describe marriage in the context of a Biblical worldview.

Consider that the family is the nucleus of the society. It is the foundation on which society works. The families, for the most part in America, are broken without the help of homosexuality. We have children who grow up and never know who their father is. We have the same with children and their mothers. We have deadbeat dads and we have mothers who abandon the home in search of vain pursuits of career rather than being the "hand that rocks the cradle that will rule the world." We have forgotten family and so we are trying to redefine it.

Now, many accept two mommys or two daddys as family. They accept all sorts of distortions of what has been both biblically and culturally defined since the beginning. Jesus, in addressing the issue of divorce, told those asking if it was ok to divorce their wives for any reason that "from the beginning it was not so." Well, how was it in the beginning?

And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

"This at last is bone of my bonesand flesh of my flesh;she shall be called Woman,because she was taken out of Man."

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

That's how it was. One man and one woman, who engaged in a physical relationship that produced children to fulfill the command of "being fruitful and multiplying" and taking "dominion over the earth." It was later that men perverted God's institution of marriage. They perverted it through prostitution, fornication, rape, incest and homosexuality. All of these are perversions of human sexuality in order to not obey what God had set apart for marriage; and all of these perversions carry serious consequences.

Conclusion

For a man running for political office to abandon these two planks as "trivial" or not important, is to strike at the foundations of the nation. It strikes at the issue of life, and it strikes at the nucleus of the society. For without life, there is no family and without the family, there is no society. It will inevitably break down and we are seeing the fruit of the breakdown of the family in our generation.

"It may be inferred again that the present movement for [Homosexual Marriage; formerly "women's rights"] will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent…conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows [Liberalism; formerly "Radicalism"] as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt utterly lost its savor…It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its "bark is worse than its bite," and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance.

The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to [Liberalism; formerly written as "Radicalism"] to keep it "in wind," and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when [Homosexual Marriage; formerly written as "women's suffrage"] shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of [pedophilia; formerly written as "baby suffrage"]; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of [bestiality; formerly written as "suffrage to asses"] . There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position."

My friends and fellow Americans, these issues are not trivial. They are not without consequence. The murder of over 50 million children under a government that will not protect their right to life has serious consequences. We have allowed for the "legal," but unlawful destruction of 1/6 of our population. In addition, we have kowtowed to sodomite men who act as women and women who seek to act like men. They cannot re-produce so they seek to have America's children and indoctrinate them into their perversions. Already the cries of pedophilia, polygamy and beastiality are being echoed following the loud, obnoxious toxic filth being spewed from the sodomite community's unclean lips.

Instead of the Church of Jesus Christ standing up and demanding they clean their closets, she has sat back and let them come out in the streets parading their wickedness and heralding the destruction of the nation. Will we demand that political leaders and political parties stand on these principles, or will we follow the opposition in support of these things? It's up to you and me. I say that these are two planks that cannot be abandoned or all is lost. We must repent, and we must demand repentance of those that seek our vote, as well as those that participate in these things.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.